Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Licensing in a Polluting Industry

We consider a firm’s incentive for foreign direct investment (FDI) and international technology licensing in a polluting industry. We explain the rationale and the welfare implications of complementarity between FDI and licensing, i.e., the firm’s strategy of “FDI and licensing” ( FL ), which is emp...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Environmental & resource economics 2024-09, Vol.87 (9), p.2361-2399
Hauptverfasser: Cao, Jiyun, Mukherjee, Arijit
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2399
container_issue 9
container_start_page 2361
container_title Environmental & resource economics
container_volume 87
creator Cao, Jiyun
Mukherjee, Arijit
description We consider a firm’s incentive for foreign direct investment (FDI) and international technology licensing in a polluting industry. We explain the rationale and the welfare implications of complementarity between FDI and licensing, i.e., the firm’s strategy of “FDI and licensing” ( FL ), which is empirically relevant but ignored in the literature. When the environmental tax cannot be committed, the firm adopts the licensing strategy if the pollution intensity is not high, and the licensing strategy may create lower consumer surplus and welfare compared to both FDI and FL . However, if the pollution intensity is high, the firm undertakes FL , which provide higher consumer surplus and welfare compared to both licensing and FDI. When the government can commit to the environmental tax, the firm always prefers FL . The host-country welfare is higher but the consumer surplus and world welfare may be lower under the committed tax policy compared to the non-committed tax policy. These results hold under Cournot competition and Stackelberg competition. We further show that FL can be the equilibrium strategy of the foreign firm if there is fixed-fee licensing instead of a two-part tariff licensing, which is considered in the main analysis.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s10640-024-00886-7
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3153714971</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3153714971</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-9d9da23cf9fc3783e75395a59b8b0df3c3b6b99ad97557a2fd0c4880dc22a9643</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQhoMouK7-AU8BL16qk06TNEfxc2VBD3oO2TRdK91Ek1bYf2-0guDB0zDM884MDyHHDM4YgDxPDEQFBZRVAVDXopA7ZMa4xIJxKHfJDFQeiUrAPjlI6RUAlKzEjNzfhOi6tadXXXR2oAv_4dKwcX6gxjf0ydkXH_qw3tJlZ51PnV_TzlNDH0Pfj8NXu_DNmIa4PSR7remTO_qpc_J8c_10eVcsH24XlxfLwqKQQ6Ea1ZgSbatai7JGJzkqbrha1StoWrS4EiulTKMk59KUbQO2qmtobFkaJSqck9Np71sM72P-Vm-6ZF3fG-_CmDQyjpJVSrKMnvxBX8MYff5OYxYgsAYUmSonysaQUnStfovdxsStZqC_9OpJr8569bdeLXOITiFng-_Sb0SBUCUC8ozghKQ89GsXf6__s_gTOlyG7w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3097638036</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Licensing in a Polluting Industry</title><source>PAIS Index</source><source>SpringerLink Journals</source><creator>Cao, Jiyun ; Mukherjee, Arijit</creator><creatorcontrib>Cao, Jiyun ; Mukherjee, Arijit</creatorcontrib><description>We consider a firm’s incentive for foreign direct investment (FDI) and international technology licensing in a polluting industry. We explain the rationale and the welfare implications of complementarity between FDI and licensing, i.e., the firm’s strategy of “FDI and licensing” ( FL ), which is empirically relevant but ignored in the literature. When the environmental tax cannot be committed, the firm adopts the licensing strategy if the pollution intensity is not high, and the licensing strategy may create lower consumer surplus and welfare compared to both FDI and FL . However, if the pollution intensity is high, the firm undertakes FL , which provide higher consumer surplus and welfare compared to both licensing and FDI. When the government can commit to the environmental tax, the firm always prefers FL . The host-country welfare is higher but the consumer surplus and world welfare may be lower under the committed tax policy compared to the non-committed tax policy. These results hold under Cournot competition and Stackelberg competition. We further show that FL can be the equilibrium strategy of the foreign firm if there is fixed-fee licensing instead of a two-part tariff licensing, which is considered in the main analysis.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0924-6460</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1573-1502</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10640-024-00886-7</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Commitment ; Complementarity ; consumer surplus ; Economic Policy ; Economics ; Economics and Finance ; Environmental Economics ; Environmental incentives ; Environmental Law/Policy/Ecojustice ; Environmental Management ; Environmental tax ; Fiscal policy ; foreign direct investment ; Foreign investment ; Game theory ; industry ; issues and policy ; Licenses ; Licensing ; Licensing (technology) ; Pollution ; Strategy ; Tariffs ; Taxation ; Technology ; Welfare</subject><ispartof>Environmental &amp; resource economics, 2024-09, Vol.87 (9), p.2361-2399</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2024</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2024. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-9d9da23cf9fc3783e75395a59b8b0df3c3b6b99ad97557a2fd0c4880dc22a9643</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9611-2888</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10640-024-00886-7$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10640-024-00886-7$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27843,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cao, Jiyun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mukherjee, Arijit</creatorcontrib><title>Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Licensing in a Polluting Industry</title><title>Environmental &amp; resource economics</title><addtitle>Environ Resource Econ</addtitle><description>We consider a firm’s incentive for foreign direct investment (FDI) and international technology licensing in a polluting industry. We explain the rationale and the welfare implications of complementarity between FDI and licensing, i.e., the firm’s strategy of “FDI and licensing” ( FL ), which is empirically relevant but ignored in the literature. When the environmental tax cannot be committed, the firm adopts the licensing strategy if the pollution intensity is not high, and the licensing strategy may create lower consumer surplus and welfare compared to both FDI and FL . However, if the pollution intensity is high, the firm undertakes FL , which provide higher consumer surplus and welfare compared to both licensing and FDI. When the government can commit to the environmental tax, the firm always prefers FL . The host-country welfare is higher but the consumer surplus and world welfare may be lower under the committed tax policy compared to the non-committed tax policy. These results hold under Cournot competition and Stackelberg competition. We further show that FL can be the equilibrium strategy of the foreign firm if there is fixed-fee licensing instead of a two-part tariff licensing, which is considered in the main analysis.</description><subject>Commitment</subject><subject>Complementarity</subject><subject>consumer surplus</subject><subject>Economic Policy</subject><subject>Economics</subject><subject>Economics and Finance</subject><subject>Environmental Economics</subject><subject>Environmental incentives</subject><subject>Environmental Law/Policy/Ecojustice</subject><subject>Environmental Management</subject><subject>Environmental tax</subject><subject>Fiscal policy</subject><subject>foreign direct investment</subject><subject>Foreign investment</subject><subject>Game theory</subject><subject>industry</subject><subject>issues and policy</subject><subject>Licenses</subject><subject>Licensing</subject><subject>Licensing (technology)</subject><subject>Pollution</subject><subject>Strategy</subject><subject>Tariffs</subject><subject>Taxation</subject><subject>Technology</subject><subject>Welfare</subject><issn>0924-6460</issn><issn>1573-1502</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LxDAQhoMouK7-AU8BL16qk06TNEfxc2VBD3oO2TRdK91Ek1bYf2-0guDB0zDM884MDyHHDM4YgDxPDEQFBZRVAVDXopA7ZMa4xIJxKHfJDFQeiUrAPjlI6RUAlKzEjNzfhOi6tadXXXR2oAv_4dKwcX6gxjf0ydkXH_qw3tJlZ51PnV_TzlNDH0Pfj8NXu_DNmIa4PSR7remTO_qpc_J8c_10eVcsH24XlxfLwqKQQ6Ea1ZgSbatai7JGJzkqbrha1StoWrS4EiulTKMk59KUbQO2qmtobFkaJSqck9Np71sM72P-Vm-6ZF3fG-_CmDQyjpJVSrKMnvxBX8MYff5OYxYgsAYUmSonysaQUnStfovdxsStZqC_9OpJr8569bdeLXOITiFng-_Sb0SBUCUC8ozghKQ89GsXf6__s_gTOlyG7w</recordid><startdate>20240901</startdate><enddate>20240901</enddate><creator>Cao, Jiyun</creator><creator>Mukherjee, Arijit</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>OQ6</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7S9</scope><scope>L.6</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9611-2888</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240901</creationdate><title>Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Licensing in a Polluting Industry</title><author>Cao, Jiyun ; Mukherjee, Arijit</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c367t-9d9da23cf9fc3783e75395a59b8b0df3c3b6b99ad97557a2fd0c4880dc22a9643</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Commitment</topic><topic>Complementarity</topic><topic>consumer surplus</topic><topic>Economic Policy</topic><topic>Economics</topic><topic>Economics and Finance</topic><topic>Environmental Economics</topic><topic>Environmental incentives</topic><topic>Environmental Law/Policy/Ecojustice</topic><topic>Environmental Management</topic><topic>Environmental tax</topic><topic>Fiscal policy</topic><topic>foreign direct investment</topic><topic>Foreign investment</topic><topic>Game theory</topic><topic>industry</topic><topic>issues and policy</topic><topic>Licenses</topic><topic>Licensing</topic><topic>Licensing (technology)</topic><topic>Pollution</topic><topic>Strategy</topic><topic>Tariffs</topic><topic>Taxation</topic><topic>Technology</topic><topic>Welfare</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cao, Jiyun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mukherjee, Arijit</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>ECONIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>AGRICOLA</collection><collection>AGRICOLA - Academic</collection><jtitle>Environmental &amp; resource economics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cao, Jiyun</au><au>Mukherjee, Arijit</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Licensing in a Polluting Industry</atitle><jtitle>Environmental &amp; resource economics</jtitle><stitle>Environ Resource Econ</stitle><date>2024-09-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>87</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>2361</spage><epage>2399</epage><pages>2361-2399</pages><issn>0924-6460</issn><eissn>1573-1502</eissn><abstract>We consider a firm’s incentive for foreign direct investment (FDI) and international technology licensing in a polluting industry. We explain the rationale and the welfare implications of complementarity between FDI and licensing, i.e., the firm’s strategy of “FDI and licensing” ( FL ), which is empirically relevant but ignored in the literature. When the environmental tax cannot be committed, the firm adopts the licensing strategy if the pollution intensity is not high, and the licensing strategy may create lower consumer surplus and welfare compared to both FDI and FL . However, if the pollution intensity is high, the firm undertakes FL , which provide higher consumer surplus and welfare compared to both licensing and FDI. When the government can commit to the environmental tax, the firm always prefers FL . The host-country welfare is higher but the consumer surplus and world welfare may be lower under the committed tax policy compared to the non-committed tax policy. These results hold under Cournot competition and Stackelberg competition. We further show that FL can be the equilibrium strategy of the foreign firm if there is fixed-fee licensing instead of a two-part tariff licensing, which is considered in the main analysis.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s10640-024-00886-7</doi><tpages>39</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9611-2888</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0924-6460
ispartof Environmental & resource economics, 2024-09, Vol.87 (9), p.2361-2399
issn 0924-6460
1573-1502
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3153714971
source PAIS Index; SpringerLink Journals
subjects Commitment
Complementarity
consumer surplus
Economic Policy
Economics
Economics and Finance
Environmental Economics
Environmental incentives
Environmental Law/Policy/Ecojustice
Environmental Management
Environmental tax
Fiscal policy
foreign direct investment
Foreign investment
Game theory
industry
issues and policy
Licenses
Licensing
Licensing (technology)
Pollution
Strategy
Tariffs
Taxation
Technology
Welfare
title Foreign Direct Investment and Technology Licensing in a Polluting Industry
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-12T09%3A28%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Foreign%20Direct%20Investment%20and%20Technology%20Licensing%20in%20a%20Polluting%20Industry&rft.jtitle=Environmental%20&%20resource%20economics&rft.au=Cao,%20Jiyun&rft.date=2024-09-01&rft.volume=87&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=2361&rft.epage=2399&rft.pages=2361-2399&rft.issn=0924-6460&rft.eissn=1573-1502&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10640-024-00886-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3153714971%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3097638036&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true